Timmons v. Dolly et al

Filing 29

ORDER Granting 28 Motion to Extend Time Re: 8 Second Amended Complaint. Aramark answer due 5/24/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/24/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1 Joel D. Odou (State Bar No. 7468)
[e-mail]
2 Christina M. Mamer (State Bar No. 13181)
[e-mail]
3 Susana Santana (State Bar No. 13753)
[e-mail]
4 WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
2881 Business Park Court, Suite 200
5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128-9020
Phone: [phone] ♦ Fax: [phone]
6
Attorneys for Aramark Services, Inc.
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11 TOLAVIUS TIMMONS,
Attorneys at Law
2881 BUSINESS PARK COURT, SUITE 200
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89128-9020
TELEPHONE [phone] ♦ FAX [phone]

WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP

10

Plaintiff,

12
v.

13

14 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT; CAPTAIN ANDREW
15 PERALTA; ARAMARK; BONNIE POLLEY;
LT. YANCEY TAYLOR; SGT. FRANC
16 CADET; LEONEL VERDUZCO; SHERIFF
JOE LOMBARDO,
17
Defendants.
18

Case No. 2:17-cv-00361-JAD-NJK
ARAMARK SERVICES INC.'S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
RESPONSIVE PLEADING
[FIRST REQUEST]

19
20

Defendant Aramark Services, Inc., by and through its counsel, Wood, Smith, Henning &

21 Berman, LLP, hereby moves this Court for a thirty (30) day extension of time to answer or otherwise
22 respond to Plaintiff, Tolavius Simmons' Second Amended Complaint [ECF 8], filed on October 11,
23 2018, in the above-entitled action.
24

This motion is made and based upon the pleadings and papers on file, and the memorandum of

25 points and authorities herein.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /

LEGAL:10343-0285/11412078.1

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

3

On October 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint [ECF 8]. Thereafter, on

4 January 29, 2019, the Court entered an Order [ECF 11] allowing certain causes of action in Plaintiff's
5 Second Amended Complaint to proceed. A Summons [ECF 12] was issued to Aramark on January
6 30, 2019, and Aramark was then served with Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint on April 4, 2019.
7 As such, an Answer or other response to the Complaint is due on or before April 24, 2019. Upon
8 receipt of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Aramark began the process of reviewing Plaintiff's
9 Complaint and obtaining the pertinent records, which are necessary to effectively respond to Plaintiff's

11 respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.
Attorneys at Law
2881 BUSINESS PARK COURT, SUITE 200
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89128-9020
TELEPHONE [phone] ♦ FAX [phone]

WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP

10 Complaint and defend the instant action.1 Despite Aramark's diligent efforts, further time is needed to

12 II.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

13

FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) provides:

14

1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time,
the court may, for good cause, extend the time:
(A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is
made, before the original time or its extension expires; or
(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act
because of excusable neglect.
(2) Exceptions. A court must not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b)
and (d), 52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e), and 60(b).

15
16
17
18
19

LR IA 6-1 provides in pertinent part:
(a) A motion or stipulation to extend time must state the reasons for the
extension requested and must inform the court of all previous extensions of
the subject deadline the court granted. . . . A request made after the
expiration of the specified period will not be granted unless the movant or
attorney demonstrates that the failure to file the motion before the deadline
expired was the result of excusable neglect. Immediately below the title of
the motion or stipulation there also must be a statement indicating whether
it is the first, second, third, etc., requested extension. . . .
(b) The court may set aside any extension obtained in contravention of this
rule.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Rule 6(b)(1) allows for a party to move for an enlargement of time, the determination of which
lies with the presiding court. "The Court has inherent power and discretion to control its docket, and

27
28

1

See Declaration of Christina M. Mamer, Esq., attached hereto as Exhibit "A."

LEGAL:10343-0285/11412078.1

-2-

1 the proceedings within the cases on its docket." Ford v. County of Missoula, Mont., 2010 WL
2 2674036, 1 (D. Mont., 2010) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also
3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) (advisory committee note, 1946) ("Rule 6(b) is a rule of general application giving
4 wide discretion to the court to enlarge these limits or revive them after they have expired . . .").
5

Defendant is requesting an extension of time to file its answer or other response to Plaintiff's

6 Second Amended Complaint [ECF 8] before the deadline has expired. Defendant is making this
7 request based upon good cause to gather key pieces of information that are necessary to effectively
8 defend the instant action and properly respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Since
9 receiving Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Aramark has begun the process of requesting

11 Second Amended Complaint, however, further time is needed to gather the requested information. As
Attorneys at Law
2881 BUSINESS PARK COURT, SUITE 200
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89128-9020
TELEPHONE [phone] ♦ FAX [phone]

WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP

10 information from individual(s) that may have personal knowledge of the events described in Plaintiff's

12 such, Aramark respectfully requests a thirty (30) day enlargement of time in which to file an Answer
13 or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, up to and including May 24, 2019.
14 / / /
15 / / /
16 / / /
17 / / /
18 / / /
19 / / /
20 / / /
21 / / /
22 / / /
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
LEGAL:10343-0285/11412078.1

-3-

1 III.

CONCLUSION

2

Based upon the foregoing, Aramark requests a thirty (30) day extension of time to respond to

3 Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint up to and including May 24, 2019. This request is being made
4 in good faith and not for the purpose of delay.
5

April 23, 2019

6

WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
Attorneys at Law

7
8

By

9

11
Attorneys at Law
2881 BUSINESS PARK COURT, SUITE 200
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89128-9020
TELEPHONE [phone] ♦ FAX [phone]

WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP

10

12
13
14
15

/s/ Christina M. Mamer
JOEL D. ODOU
Nevada Bar No. 7468
CHRISTINA M. MAMER
Nevada Bar No. 13181
SUSANA SANTANA
Nevada Bar No. 13753
2881 Business Park Court, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89128-9020
Tel. [phone]
Attorneys for Aramark Services, Inc.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21

DATED:

April 24, 2019

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEGAL:10343-0285/11412078.1

-4-